Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Balak

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In discussing the dialogue between Balak and Bilaam, Rashi identifies three instances where Balak told Bilaam to say one thing to Hashem, but Bilaam said something different to Hashem. In Bamidbar 22:6 Balak tells Bilaam וְעַתָּה֩ לְכָה־נָּ֨א אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה. But when Bilaam relays this to Hashem in Bamidbar 22:11, Bilaam states   עַתָּ֗ה לְכָ֤ה קָֽבָה־לִּי֙ אֹת֔וֹ. Rashi explains that this is a more severe form of cursing.

Similarly in Bamidbar 22:6, Balak states אוּלַ֤י אוּכַל֙ נַכֶּה־בּ֔וֹ וַֽאֲגָֽרְשֶׁ֖נּוּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ, but in Bamidbar 22:11, Bilaam states אוּלַ֥י אוּכַ֛ל לְהִלָּ֥חֶם בּ֖וֹ וְגֵֽרַשְׁתִּֽיו. Rashi again explains that whereas Balak only wanted the Jews gone, Bilaam's request was to wipe the Jews out from the world.

A further example from Bamidbar 22:6 is the use of אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה  these people whereas Bilaam states in 22:11 הָעָם֙ which is this nation - the Jewish nation and is a further indicia of a desire to wipe out the Jews.

R' Frand stated that Bilaam was not trying to deceive Hashem as to Balak's request. Rather, his hatred for the Jews colored what he thought that he heard. Balak was the king of Moab and wanted to solve a problem. But Bilaam hated the Jews and he heard greater language of what was stated.

R' Frand said that this is an example of the maxim - you hear what you want to hear. The same way that love can influence a person's views, so too does hatred. Because you hear what you want to hear.

R' Frand made reference to a Gemara in Gittin 45(a) which discussed R' Ilish who was in jail with another person who knew bird language. A crow came and began speaking. R' Ilish asked the other man - what did the crow say? He responded that the crow was saying - Ilish run away. R' Ilish responded - crows are liars, never trust crows. But then a dove came and also chirped. R' Ilish asked - what is the dove saying? He again responded - Ilish run away. This statement was accepted by R' Ilish who noted that the Jews are compared to a dove, so I can trust it and R' Ilish ran away.

R' Frand quoted R Akiva Eger who in turn cited the Aruch who states that R' Ilish did speak bird language as well as Seder HaDoros who said that we see from this that R' Ilish did not speak bird language. R' Akiva Eger said - the Seder HaDoros is wrong - R' Ilish did speak bird language, but you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. He did not want to believe the crow because crows lie. And when he heard the dove he did hear it, but he thought, maybe I am hearing what I wanted to hear, so he asked the other man to interpret it. R' Ilish thought he knew what the dove was saying, but said - I can't trust myself as I want to get out of here so quickly. Because he recognized that a person's perceptions are influenced by what they think and their preconceived notions.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Chukas

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Bamidbar 21:4-10, the Torah recounts the story of the Jews' complaint about the manna and the Jews punishment for speaking out. This is not the first time that the Jews complained about the Manna as they had complained in Parshas Behaalosecha as well. But why did they complain again and why complain about the manna at all? The manna tasted like whatever the consumer wished it to taste. If he wanted meat it would be meat and if he wished for dairy it would taste like dairy. The medrash explains that the manna's miracle also included that it would not become waste in a person's body. So why did the Jews complain about the manna?

R' Frand's next question was --why did Hashem punish the Jews with snakes? There were many other punishments during the time the Jews were in the desert?

R' Frand quoted the Gemara in Yoma which asks why did the manna fall every day (other than Shabbos) instead on once per year. The Gemara answered by way of a mashal about a King who needed to provide for his son. The king would give his son an allowance once a year. Not coincidentally, this was also the only time that the king would see his son. The king changed his habit and began to give his son his needs on a daily basis. As a result, he would see his son much more often.

R' Frand then connected the mashal to the Jews in the desert. Since the manna fell daily and would spoil if kept an extra day, the Jews needed to go out and gather manna every day. The Jews complained about the manna because they did not want to be beholden to Hashem and need to seek Him out for sustenance on a daily basis.

R' Frand next discussed the reason that the snakes were chosen as punishment. He quoted R' Shimshon Refael Hirsch who observed that the Torah uses the word וַיְשַׁלַּ֨ח (Bamidbar 21:6) as opposed to וַיִּשְׁלַ֨ח? He explains that the word וַיְשַׁלַּ֨ח is Pi'el - and the conjugation means that Hashem released the snakes as opposed to sending them. The snakes had always been there, but Hashem held them back and protected the Jews. But once they said that they did not want the connection with Hashem the snakes were released. This is also why they are referred to as הַנְּחָשִׁ֣ים הַשְּׂרָפִ֔ים the snakes (as a definite article) because they were always there.

R' Frand also quoted R' Bukspan from Miami who observed that the snake was previously mentioned in the Torah in Bereishis where he received a curious punishment. As explained by the Sfas Emes, Hashem tells the snake that he will crawl on his stomach and eat dirt. On the surface, this appears to be a blessing as the snake will never want for food. However, on a deeper level it is apparent that it was truly a punishment. Hashem in effect said to the snake - I don't want to see you ever again. You can eat eat all the dirt you want, just don't come back to me. This was the message to the Jews who did not want to have a connection with Him. Hashem was saying to the Jews - you don't want to depend on Me on a daily basis for food? Well, if you want to be like the snake, then I will send the snakes after you.

R' Frand concluded the vort by stating that the cure for the plague of snakes was more than just looking at a copper snake. It was looking at a snake which was raised up on a pole. Hashem was thus hinting to the Jews - if you look up and recognize that it all comes from Me, then you will be saved.

R' Frand closed the vort by telling a story he received by email from a woman who had made Aliyah from Baltimore and lived in a neighborhood in Israel which had both Kollel families and an army base. There was a Kollel husband who was shopping in the supermarket with a cart loaded with 1500 NIS of groceries. An army officer offered to pay for his groceries and the Kollel husband asked why. The officer explained that he had recently gone to Ukraine to install the Iron Dome and that after he returned he received a request to come back. It seemed that in Ukraine the system was intercepting at a 50% rate whereas in Israel it was 95%. He went back and tested the system but it was working fine. The officer then explained to the Kollel husband that the difference was that in Israel the men learning in Kollel were protecting the country and that was why the interception rate was much higher. As such he wanted to thank the Kollel husband and pay for his groceries.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Shelach

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand discussed the sin of the Meraglim and focused on Moshe's efforts to convince Hashem not to destroy the Jews after they complained as a result of hearing the report of the Meraglim. Moshe took two approaches - first he said to Hashem in Bamidbar 14:13-15 that the nations of the world would think that He could not bring the Jews into the Land of Israel and then stated in 14:16 - מִבִּלְתִּ֞י יְכֹ֣לֶת יְהֹוָ֗ה לְהָבִיא֙ אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּ֣ע לָהֶ֑ם וַיִּשְׁחָטֵ֖ם בַּמִּדְבָּֽר. 

Thereafter Moshe invokes the 13 Middos in Bamidbar 14:18-19, to which Hashem responds in 14:20 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֔ה סָלַ֖חְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶֽךָ.

R' Frand said that Meforshim explain that Hashem forgave the Jews because of the first approach - where Moshe said that this would cause the nations to question Hashem's ability.

Immediately afterwards Hashem says in 14:21 וְאוּלָ֖ם חַי־אָ֑נִי וְיִמָּלֵ֥א כְבוֹד־יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ, which seems like a non-sequitur.

R' Frand quoted the Netziv who explains this sequence by linking it to Tehillim 106 which recounts the travails of the Jews in the desert, but also contains a pasuk which seems out of place. In 106:25 it states וַיֵּרָֽגְנ֥וּ בְאָֽהֳלֵיהֶ֑ם לֹ֥א שָֽׁ֜מְע֗וּ בְּק֣וֹל יְהֹוָֽה - the Jews complained and did not listen to Hashem. Thereafter the punishment is stated in 106:26 - וַיִּשָּׂ֣א יָד֣וֹ לָהֶ֑ם לְהַפִּ֥יל א֜וֹתָ֗ם בַּמִּדְבָּֽר. But then in 106:27 it states וּלְהַפִּ֣יל זַ֖רְעָם בַּגּוֹיִ֑ם וּ֜לְזָרֽוֹתָ֗ם בָּֽאֲרָצֽוֹת, however the Jews were not scattered among the nations while they were in the desert!

The Netziv explains that there was a Plan A and a Plan B. If the Jews had not sinned, they would have gone directly into the land of Israel and built the Beis Hamikdash and the entire world would have seen the Kiddush Hashem and said Hashem Hu HaElokim. 

But things did not work out that instead the Plan B was to scatter the Jews among the nations so that they could make Kiddush Hashem wherever they went. This also would cause the nations to recognize Hashem as well. Because they would look at the Jews and see how they acted and survived all the years of Galus (vs the small fraction of time that they were in the land of Israel).

R' Frand quoted the Yaavetz who writes that the greatest miracle is that the Jews are still around and he opines that this is a greater miracle than Yitziyas Mitzrayim.

R' Frand also quoted R' Chatzkel Levenstein who remarked about the Mirrer Yeshiva's travels from Mir to Kobe, Japan to Shanghai and eventually to Brooklyn and Israel as a greater miracle than the Purim story.

R' Frand closed the vort by recognizing the current miracles, including the direct hit on Soroka Hospital which did not kill anyone and the fact that 95% of the missiles from Iran are being intercepted. He mentioned that R' Asher Weiss has instituted that among the Tehillim said after davening is Mizmor L'Todah as a recognition of all that Hashem is doing for us.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Beha'alosecha

Although R' Frand did not deliver his live shiur this evening due to a family wedding, R' Frand did post a pre-recorded Parsha vort on OU Torah which I have summarized here. This week's vort can be found at https://outorah.org/p/226333 and I have attempted to reproduce the vort to the best of my ability in this post.  Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to the maggid shiur.

R' Frand began the vort by noting that in this parsha the Torah states that the Levi'im begin their service at age 25. However in Parshas Bamidbar it states that service begins at 30. R' Frand quoted Rashi who asks - is it 25 or 30? Rashi answers that there are 5 years of training which begin at 25, but he can't begin the Avodah until 30.

R' Frand noted that the Kohanim did the lion's share of the work in the Beis HaMikdash, but there is no pasuk that teaches that they have a 5 year training period, even though the role of the Levi is less arduous.

R' Frand quoted R' Berel Weinberger in Shemen HaTov who explains that the Levi'im have only 20 years to work - from 30-50, unlike the Kohanim who don't have an end date. As the Levi'im only have 20 years, they can't afford to learn on the job, they train ahead of their "go" date.

R' Frand observed that when boys come to Yeshiva they think that the learning will last forever, but they don't realize that the time in Yeshiva is finite. Very few people stay in Yeshiva, learning forever. R' Frand said that he tells his students that they should hit the ground running as it will not last forever. 

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Nasso

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand noted that there are a series of interesting Mitzvos in the fourth Aliyah of the Parsha - Sotah, followed by Nazir, then Birkas Kohanim and then the dedication of the Mishkan in which each tribe brought sacrifices through their Nesiim.

Rashi explains the connection between the Matnos Kehunah in the third Aliyah and the law of Sotah - stating that whomever is stingy and does not want to give their Matnos Kehunah to the Kohain, will need the Kohain's assistance to deal with a suspected Sotah.

The connection between Nazir and Sotah is mentioned in the Gemara in Sotah which states that the person who sees the spectacle of the Sotah will swear off wine, since the wine brought those people to adultery, the Nazir swears that he won't drink wine.

But what is the connection with Birkas Kohanim and thereafter the sacrifices of the Nesi'im? And more fundamentally, why is the Mitzva of Birkas Kohanim in Sefer Bamidbar and not Sefer Vayikra, with all the rules of the sacrifices and Kohanim?

R' Frand quoted R' Immanuel Bernstein who cites R' Shlomo Fisher of Yerushalaim to address these questions. He first observed that the Nazir lives on an elevated spiritual plain as he abstains from wine and being tamei, yet when he finishes his period, he brings a sacrifice to atone. Why? The Gemara explains that he invented a new Issur for himself. While its noble that he wants to improve, but accomplishing this by separating himself is not without fault.

R' Fisher further explains that the Nazir also separated himself from humanity. R' Hirsch explains that this is why the Nazir grows his hair and does not drink wine - to create a barrier between himself and others and not engaging in social drinking. But this is not good - he should control his Yezter Hara, not separate himself from the people as "holier than thou."

So if a Nazir must atone for his separation, the Kohainim who live a separate existence, should also have to atone. Why don't they do so? Because every morning they demonstrate their love of the Jewish people by blessing them and doing so "B'Ahavah." And a Kohain who cannot bless the congregation with a full heart cannot give the Bracha. This is why Birkas Kohanim is here.

But what does this have to do with the sacrifices of the Nesi'im which dominates Parshas Nasso? The answer is that the sacrifices started on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, and each sacrifice had the law of a private sacrifice. How did they bring one on Shabbos - there are no personal sacrifices on Shabbos! The answer is that it is not a private sacrifice as all the Nesi'im agreed that they would bring the same sacrifice as part of a group. This is why it could be brought on Shabbos.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bamidbar

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand noted that the Behag and the Gemara in Sotah calls Sefer Bamidbar - Chumash HaPikudim and in English its called the Book of Numbers. Why? Because the Sefer begins with a count of the Jews and in Parshas Pinchas at the end there is another count.

But if you asked the average person, what is the theme of the Sefer, you would not get a response that its about counting. People might mention the various troubles that befell the Jews or the challenges to Moshe. They might call it the Book of Troubles or Challenges, but why the Book of Numbers?

R' Frand quoted the Netziv in his preface to Sefer Bamidbar (as developed by R' Immanuel Bernstein) who states that the counting is fundamental to the entire Sefer Bamidbar. He begins by quoting a Medrash in Sefer Bereishis which states that each of the five Chumashim or hinted to in Sefer Bereishis. The pasuk which defines Sefer Bamidbar is Bereishis 1:4 wherein the Torah states  וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֽשֶׁךְ.

Why does this define Sefer Bamidbar? Because Torah is Ohr (light) and in Sefer Bamidbar, Hashem separated between light and darkness. When the Jews started their journey in the Sefer, the miracles were open and obvious - they had the Manna and the Clouds of Glory - Hashem's presence was as clear as the light of day. But at the end of the Sefer the Jews returned to normal life. 

The first census in Parshas Bamidbar they were in the period of light and open miracles. But when counted Parshas Pinchas at the end, the Jews were living a normal life. This can be seen even in the way that the Jews were counted as in Parshas Bamidbar, the Jews were counted as part of their formation as they marched in the desert as they escorted the Shechina. But in Parshas Pinchas they were simply counted by number as they were worried about their own protection, fought battles and had to worry about food and water. And the line of demarcation is Parshas Chukas.

The Netziv also observes that the order of counting Ephraim and Menashe were reversed. In Parshas Bamidbar, Ephraim is counted first as he was more spiritual. But in Parshas Pinchas, Menashe is counted first because they needed to get on with normal life.

The Netziv also opined that the Jews troubles in Sefer Bamdibar came from being impetuous - acting in a way that they believed that they were ready to move on and Hashem knew that it was not yet time. The Meraglim only became an issue because the Jews were raring to enter the land of Israel and felt that they needed intelligence.

R' Frand said a second vort on the name of the Nasi for Gad who in the beginning is called אֶלְיָסָ֖ף בֶּן־דְּעוּאֵֽל but later in Bamidbar 2:14 is called אֶלְיָסָ֖ף בֶּן־רְעוּאֵֽל. Why the name change?

R' Frand quoted the Chida who cites the Sefer Imrei Noam which notes that the four leading tribes for the marching in the desert were Yehuda, Reuven, Menashe and Dan. That Yehuda was a leader was due to the Melucha coming from him. Meanwhile, Reuven was the first born of Leah and Menashe was for Rachel (through Yosef). But Elyasaf as the prince of Gad could have complained since Dan was the first born of Bilha and Gad was the first born of Zilpah - why should Dan have that role instead of Gad?

But he did not complain and in so doing he went from someone who "knew" Hashem to someone who is a "friend" of Hashem, because not complaining and questioning Hashem is a way to be even closer ot Hashem.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!